[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)

From: Ben Creisler bh480@scn.org
Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)

I've been reviewing page-proofs for somebody else's book 
on dinosaurs, and had to deal with the Richardoestesia vs. 
Ricardoestesia mess again. I would also note at least two 
recent papers that use the spelling Richardoestesia (one 
in the Journal of Paleontology, and one in Comptes Rendus 
Palevol).  This issue was discussed back in Feb. 2001, and 
my position remains that the spelling Richardoestesia is 
the one to use. (my comments: 
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/2001Feb/msg00768.html and 
George's reply: 

I think some additional points are worth making.
As far as I can determine, George qualifies as the "First 
Reviser" for the name as of the publication of Mesozoic 
Meanderings # 2 first edition (dated Oct. 24, 1991). On 
page 127 he lists Richardoestesia Currie, Rigby & Sloan, 
1990 as the correct spelling. Ricardoestesia Currie, 
Rigby, & Sloan, 1990 [sic] is indicated immediately below 
as a misspelling. Under ICZN Art. 24.2.3, the first author 
to have cited two alternate spellings of a name together 
and to have selected one spelling as correct qualifies as 
the First Reviser.  Under 32.5.1, this spelling could only 
be changed if it is determined to be "incorrect"--meaning 
there is evidence of an inadverent error in the original 
publication itself  "without recourse to any external 
source of information." Crucially, "incorrect 
transliteration or latinization" is not considered an 
inadvertent error.
As I pointed out back in Feb. 2001, "Richardus" is a 
perfectly good latinization for Richard, and one widely 
used in Medieval and later Latin literature. Since the 
name was intended to honor Richard Estes, the latinized 
form Richardoestesia is perfectly good and not in any way 
readable as "inadvertent error." If one of the authors of 
the original paper wanted Ricardoestesia instead, his wish 
qualifies as an "external source of  information" which 
can't be used, since it's not mentioned in the original 
paper. Moreover, the senior author on the original 
Richardoestesia paper was Phil Currie, who has used the 
spelling Richardoestesia in other papers he has authored 
or coauthored. 

Frankly, I can't find any basis in the ICZN for switching 
the spellings in later editions of Mesozoic Meanderings. 
George had in fact already been the First Reviser on the 
name in Oct. 1991. Since generic names differing by one 
letter are not homonyms, the coexistence of 
Richardoestesia and Ricardoestesia for the same taxon is 
becoming more confusing as time goes on, especially with 
electronic data retrieval and online databases.  As the 
situation is shaping up, nearly all technical papers are 
using Richardoestesia and a few books have used 
Ricardoestesia. Maybe the ICZN will have to make a 
decision, but it seems like a lot of fuss over an issue 
that was settled just fine by George in 1991.